Editorial: Simon Harris’s comments on immigration are raising more questions than he is answering

Taoiseach Simon Harris’s statement that he believed “a blind eye was turned by official Ireland to the development of what became almost a public health emergency,” regarding a “shanty-town” – now dismantled – on Mount Street, raised more questions than it answered.

Among them is how Mr Harris now as Taoiseach, or before as a senior minister, can credibly see himself as separate from “official Ireland”. Any attempt to put daylight between the Government and responsibility when it comes to managing immigration will play very badly. Even as Mr Harris was speaking, close to 100 tents were sited along the Grand Canal.

Those sleeping there have been given tents by agencies due to an indefensible absence of state accommodation. Mr Harris accepted that there continues to be an “issue” with tents emerging, but it is “very different” to what happened on Mount Street over recent months.

In terms of security, sanitation or suitability, it is hard to see any difference. All are completely inappropriate and unsafe. Commenting on the crisis, Labour leader Ivana Bacik said the “lack of co-ordination and the lack of provision amounts to the conclusion that the resulting tents amounts to a sort of Rwanda policy for the Irish Government”.

“They are leaving people sleep in tents and it’s almost as if they are seeking to send out a signal to those who may be coming to Ireland to claim refuge,” she added. Whatever the motivation, it speaks to a lack of strategy and falls far short of what is expected in meeting obligations. Mr Harris had pledged that the days of such camps were over.

Eyebrows, and possibly temperatures too, were raised with his remark that “I don’t think the people of Ireland are well served when the only aspect of the conversation around immigration that we’ve been having on loop for quite a period of time is around accommodation”.

Accommodation is fundamental to the issue.

Expecting the Government to have immediate initiatives ready to roll out for every contingency under all circumstances would be unreasonable. But Mr Harris accepts that there is “a lot more work to do”.

Our current “system” is unacceptable and unfit for purpose. Implementing a coherent, consistent sustainable process that provides secure temporary shelter is not beyond us. It may be problematic, and Mr Harris has a point in framing the solution in terms of concerted EU action.

All options must now be put in play. The use of more state land is now being mooted, something which surely might have been considered before now. Lack of promised wrap-around services for towns that have taken in big cohorts of migrants is also a source of tension. Do we need to be reminded that there is only one race, the human one? If we accept this as a society, it ordains we must treat all comers with dignity and process arrivals – or departures – swiftly and humanely.